Criminal Writ - Transfer of Investigation – Request to Hand Over to CBI – No Prima Facie Case – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, accused under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section 66D IT Act, sought transfer of investigation to CBI, alleging malafide intent by police due to prior disputes involving her husband – Held: Merely being an accused does not confer right to select investigating agency – No specific material shown to establish that investigation was biased or tainted – Constitutional Courts can order such transfers only in rare and exceptional cases where injustice or manipulation in investigation is evident – Petition dismissed [Paras 3, 7–12]. 

CBI Investigation – Scope and Judicial Review – Powers Must Be Exercised Sparingly – The Court reaffirmed that power to transfer investigation to CBI is not to be exercised as a matter of routine – It must only be done where fair trial or public confidence in justice system is at stake – Held: No cogent justification shown indicating failure of justice or undue influence – Previous convictions and involvement of petitioner in the dental clinic operation were substantiated by record – No rare or exceptional circumstances made out to warrant CBI intervention [Paras 8–10]. 

Final Decision – CBI Transfer Denied – Petition Dismissed – The Court concluded that no interference was warranted – Investigating agency had already filed chargesheet – No basis found to assume prejudice or mala fide intent behind petitioner’s implication – Petition for transfer and application for impleadment of CBI also dismissed as infructuous [Paras 11–14]. 

Taxation Law - Income Tax Search and Seizure – Challenge to Warrant of Authorization under Section 132 – Search Held Illegal – Petitioners, senior citizen promoter-shareholders of India Pesticides Ltd., challenged the validity of search and seizure operations conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and a notice under Section 131(1A) – Petitioners contended that the search was conducted without any prior notice or summons and in absence of requisite “reason to believe” as mandated under clause (b) of Section 132(1) – The search was based on retrospective amendment to Section 55(2)(ac) concerning valuation mechanism for capital gains, but no actionable material existed prior to search – Held: There was no valid information or justification under Section 132(1)(b); search and subsequent notice were declared illegal [Paras 1-4, 9-13, 34-42, 48-56].

Search and Seizure – Section 132 of the Income Tax Act – Search Held Illegal – The petitioners challenged the warrant of authorization and consequent search operations under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act – The Court held that the ‘reason to believe’ required under clause (b) of Section 132(1) was wholly absent, and no material existed in the satisfaction note justifying such belief – The Revenue could not rely on post-search materials or vague allegations – Held: Search was arbitrary and illegal, being unsupported by requisite jurisdictional facts [Paras 34-42].

Capital Gains Tax – Retrospective Amendment and Fair Market Value – Petitioners’ Claim of Bona Fide Interpretation Accepted – The petitioners had not offered capital gains on share sale under OFS due to lack of valuation mechanism prior to amendment of Section 55(2)(ac) – They claimed refund of advance tax already paid – Court accepted that tax could not be paid due to statutory lacuna in law before the retrospective amendment and held this could not justify a search under Section 132 [Paras 9-13, 38].

Section 139(8A) – Bar on Updated Returns – Search Prevents Statutory Right – Petitioners argued that after the unlawful search, they were prevented from filing updated returns under Section 139(8A) due to statutory bar – Held: Petitioners were placed at an irreversible disadvantage due to illegal action by Revenue, reinforcing the need to strike down the search [Paras 13, 43].

Post-search Justifications – Invalid Basis for Search – Supplementary Documents Ignored – The Court emphasized that the validity of search must be judged on pre-search information – Supplementary material and satisfaction note additions post-search were irrelevant and inadmissible – Held: Search authorization cannot be retroactively justified [Paras 44-46].

Notice under Section 131(1A) – Issued by Authorized Officer Post-search – Notice Quashed – The impugned notice dated 27.01.2025 under Section 131(1A) was issued by the same officer who conducted the search under Section 132 – Held: Authorized Officer under Section 132 cannot invoke powers under Section 131(1A) post-search as it violates statutory safeguards – Notice was declared invalid [Paras 49-54].

Final Decision – Warrant of Authorization and Search Proceedings Quashed – The Court held that the search conducted under Section 132 and the notice issued under Section 131(1A) were unsustainable in law – Petitions allowed – Revenue was granted liberty to proceed under other applicable provisions of the Act, including Section 148, if warranted [Paras 48, 55-56].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Share Apportionment – Preliminary Decree Modified in Part – Trial Court passed preliminary decree dividing properties A, B, and C into specific shares among the plaintiff and legal heirs of two deceased members of the family – Appellants (wife and minor son of predeceased son) contended misallocation in A schedule shares – Held: Trial Court wrongly allotted 4/15 share each to plaintiff and defendants 1–3 instead of 3/15 to defendants 1–3 – Decree corrected accordingly; other divisions upheld [Paras 2–5, 7, 10].

Death of Plaintiff Pending Appeal – Succession Dispute – Final Decree Deferred – Appellants argued that plaintiff Thankamani died intestate, affecting share devolvement – Respondents claimed existence of will – Held: Since application for supplementary preliminary decree is pending in trial court, appellate court refrains from adjudicating succession issue – Directed trial court not to pass final decree until disposal of supplementary application [Paras 8, 9, 11].

Procedural Safeguards – Appellate Directions to Prevent Prejudice – Court acknowledged appellant's concern over possible prejudice if final decree passed without addressing succession application – Issued binding direction to trial court to sequence proceedings appropriately – Ensures fair adjudication without procedural disadvantage to parties [Paras 9, 11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Preliminary decree modified regarding A schedule property shares – Final decree proceedings stayed until disposal of supplementary preliminary decree application concerning plaintiff’s share – No order as to costs – All IAs closed [Paras 10, 11].

Criminal Law - Sections 27 and 29 of the NDPS - Sections 66(B), 65(A), 81, 116(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 - Appeal Against Acquittal – Alleged Possession of Liquor Without Permit – Acquittal Confirmed – Accused found with bottles allegedly containing English liquor – Investigating officer failed to send seized bottles for FSL analysis – No sample drawn or tested to establish contents as prohibited liquor – Held: Prosecution failed to prove nature of substance seized – Mandatory procedures not followed – Acquittal by Trial Court justified [Paras 9(i)-(v)].

NDPS Offence – Recovery of Marijuana – Non-Compliance of Sections 42 and 57 – Accused No.2 Deceased – No Proof of Ownership of Farm – Trial Court Rightly Disbelieved Prosecution – Held: Seizure procedure flawed – Investigating Officer did not ascertain ownership of farm or comply with procedural mandates of NDPS Act – No interference called for with acquittal [Paras 9(vi)].

Scope of Appellate Review – Acquittal Appeals – No Perverse or Arbitrary Findings – Reappreciation of Evidence Permissible – Held: As per SC decisions, appellate court must respect acquittal unless Trial Court’s view is manifestly erroneous or implausible – Present case does not warrant reversal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 7, 10].

Decision – Prosecution Failed to Establish Offences Under Prohibition Act and NDPS Act – Acquittal Based on Justifiable Grounds – No Interference Warranted – Held: Findings of Trial Court are reasoned, supported by record, and free from legal infirmity – Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment affirmed [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Section 406, 420, 34 of the IPC - Debit Freeze of Bank Account – Power Under Section 102 CrPC – Applicability of BNSS Sections 106 and 107 – Debit Freeze Lifted – The petitioner challenged the debit freeze of its bank account imposed by the police during investigation of a cheating case involving transfer of money allegedly from the proceeds of crime – Held: While Section 106 of BNSS (similar to Section 102 CrPC) empowers police to seize property for investigation, attachment or freezing of bank accounts suspected to be proceeds of crime must follow the procedure under Section 107 of BNSS, requiring Magistrate’s order – Police cannot unilaterally impose debit freeze without such order – Debit freeze set aside, liberty granted to police to proceed under Section 107 BNSS if warranted [Paras 6-14].

Attachment vs Seizure – Distinction Clarified – Section 106 BNSS deals with seizure of property related to the offence or under suspicious circumstances for investigation purposes – Section 107 BNSS governs attachment of properties deemed to be proceeds of crime, requiring judicial oversight through Magistrate’s orders – Debit freezing of bank accounts amounts to attachment rather than mere seizure and must comply with Section 107, not Section 106 – Impugned action without following this procedure is invalid [Paras 10-13].

Proceeds of Crime – BNSS Section 107 – Mandatory Judicial Process – Court explained that proceeds of crime as defined under Section 111(c) BNSS can only be attached by a Magistrate after issuing notice, hearing parties, and satisfying statutory conditions – Interim attachment possible only if delay defeats the object – In this case, police acted without initiating such process, rendering the action illegal [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Debit Freeze Order Set Aside – Petition Allowed – The order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery in C.M.P. No.739/2025 is quashed – The debit freeze imposed on the petitioner’s account is lifted – Police at liberty to proceed under Section 107 of BNSS if necessary [Para 14].

Civil Law - Debts Recovery – Cross-Examination – Denial of Opportunity – Tribunal Order Set Aside – The petitioner, a partner of the 1st defendant firm, contested liability for crop loans claimed by the bank and sought to cross-examine the bank’s witness – DRT rejected the application citing delay and the non-necessity of oral evidence from a bank official relying on records – Held: Given the contested liability and criminal proceedings against a former bank manager for fraud, denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice – Tribunal’s order quashed [Paras 1–13].

Natural Justice – Right to Cross-Examine – Procedural Fairness Required – The Court held that though DRT proceedings are summary in nature, when core facts are disputed and liability is denied, cross-examination becomes essential to ensure fair adjudication – Discretion under Rule 12(9) of DRT Rules must be exercised judiciously, not arbitrarily – The Tribunal failed to consider relevant facts and misapplied delay as a ground to deny a substantive right [Paras 10–13].

Delay – Not Sole Ground to Deny Cross-Examination – Absence of Prejudice – The Court observed that the O.A. was pending since 2006, and no specific delay was attributable to the petitioner – The finding of delay as a tactic to protract proceedings was not supported by record – Court emphasized that delay alone cannot override the need for fair hearing when substantial prejudice is shown [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Tribunal Directed to Permit Cross-Examination – The High Court set aside the DRT’s order and directed it to allow cross-examination of the bank’s witness – Tribunal was further directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously, with final orders to be passed on or before 31.12.2025 [Para 13].

Civil Law - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - Delay Condonation – Exorbitant Delay – Lack of Bona Fides – Delay Not Condoned – The petitioner sought to condone a delay of 4864 days in filing a revision petition against the dismissal of an application to implead legal heirs in a suit for specific performance – The only ground cited was ignorance of earlier proceedings due to residing at her matrimonial home – Held: No sufficient cause was made out – Delay attributed to a casual and negligent approach without due diligence or urgency to pursue legal remedy [Paras 2–6].

Specific Performance Suit – Legal Heirs and Procedural Diligence – Dismissal for Delay – Earlier revision filed by co-legal heirs was dismissed in 2020 for non-compliance of court directions – The petitioner, despite knowledge, did not act promptly even post-dismissal – Held: The conduct revealed a callous and indifferent attitude – Relief in equity-based suits like specific performance demands timely, diligent participation – Petition dismissed [Paras 5–6].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court held that the explanation offered for the inordinate delay was unsatisfactory and indicative of negligence – Delay of over 13 years (4864 days) was not condonable in the absence of genuine reasons – The petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected and the unnumbered revision suit stood dismissed without costs [Para 6].

Service Law – Regularisation – Omission from Earlier List – Entitlement Established – The Travancore Devaswom Board sought permission to regularise the services of three additional respondents who had completed five years of service as on 31.03.2012 – Their omission from the list regularised pursuant to judgment dated 31.05.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 6021/2011 was inadvertent – Held: The omission was administrative in nature and did not affect their entitlement to regularisation – Petition allowed [Paras 1–9, 22–23].

Irregular vs Illegal Appointments – Application of Uma Devi Doctrine – Irregular Appointments Covered – The Court considered the doctrine in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and clarified that the appointments of the applicants were not illegal but irregular – Citing Supreme Court rulings in Jaggo (2024 SCC OnLine 3826), Vinod Kumar (2024) 1 SCR 1230, and Shripal (2025 SCC OnLine SC 221), the Court held that long-serving employees on sanctioned posts are entitled to regularisation – Backdoor entries distinguished from legitimate irregular appointments [Paras 10–16, 22–23].

Constitutional Principles – Parity and Fairness – Equal Treatment Mandated – Other similarly situated employees were already regularised pursuant to the 2012 judgment – Held: Denial of regularisation to the petitioners while others were regularised constitutes violation of the principle of parity and equal treatment – The constitution of the Devaswom Recruitment Board post-2012 cannot retrospectively affect their claims [Paras 10–12, 21–23].

Decision – Application Allowed – Regularisation Directed – The Court allowed the Travancore Devaswom Board to regularise the services of additional respondents 3 to 5 – Their appointments, being on sanctioned posts with more than five years’ continuous service as of 31.03.2012, were held to be irregular but not illegal – Omission from the earlier list was inadvertent – Regularisation ordered in parity with 28 others previously regularised under the same criteria [Paras 22–23].

Service Law - Appointment to Reserved Post  – Scheduled Caste Reservation – Eligibility versus Suitability – Arbitrary Rejection – Petitioner Fully Qualified – The petitioner, an Associate Professor with over 32 years of experience and an extensive publication record, applied for the post of Professor reserved for SC category – He was the only candidate who attended the interview – Despite meeting all UGC eligibility standards, he was declared ‘not suitable’ without reasons – Held: The selection process lacked transparency, was arbitrary, and indicated a pattern of deliberate exclusion of SC candidates – Petitioner’s academic and research achievements far exceeded prescribed norms and warranted appointment [Paras 1–10, 43–45].

Selection Committee – Procedural Impropriety – Post-Facto Authentication – Void Process – The Selection Committee consisted of nine members, but only five attended the interview – Two additional members who did not attend were asked to authenticate the decision three months later – Held: Their endorsement without participating in the interview was invalid and made the selection process vitiated – Such conduct amounted to mala fide action and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny [Paras 44–47].

Constitutional Mandate – Article 16 Violation – Discrimination Established – The post had remained unfilled since the Centre’s inception in 2009, despite being reserved – Repeated non-appointment of SC candidates showed deliberate denial of opportunity – Held: Rejection of the petitioner was a breach of the right to equality in public employment under Articles 16(1) and 16(2) – The rationale of ‘none found suitable’ was a smokescreen to subvert constitutional policy [Paras 47–50].

Judicial Review – Power to Interfere – Court’s Role When Selection is Arbitrary – Held: While courts generally refrain from interfering with expert opinion of selection committees, this case justified intervention due to patent illegality, arbitrariness, and mala fides – The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the selection and direct appointment of the petitioner with full service and monetary benefits from 18.12.2023 [Paras 49–56].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Appointment Directed – The Court held that the petitioner was unjustly denied appointment despite fulfilling all qualifications and being the only candidate interviewed – The order rejecting his candidature as “not suitable” was declared arbitrary, opaque, and mala fide – The Court quashed the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 and directed the University to appoint the petitioner within two weeks with retrospective service and monetary benefits from the said date [Paras 55–57].